To:G. L. PYATAKOV, YEVGENIA BOSH, N. I. BUKHARIN[1]

Written:Written after April 10, 1916Published:First published in 1964 inCollected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol. 49.

      Sent from Zurich to Stockholm.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1977],

      Moscow,Volume 43,

      pages529b-530.Translated:Martin Parker and Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Itis no use your trying, in your letter, to ignore the main thing, not
daring to deny a fact of which you are only too well aware. Namely, that
the organisation was based (provisionally) on the principle offederation—thiswas reiterated by us in every possible way as
clear as clear can be. Your long speeches do not alter this a whit. And
further, that thisprinciple was abnormal, anti-Party. This, too, was stated. And this is the
crux of the matter.

Abnormalitywas tolerable as a temporary measure in the interests of
agreement. After your removal it appears that you came to an agreement, all
three, on the
“theses”,[2]for which we can bear no responsibility either directly
or indirectly, not even recognise any proximity to them, leave alone
equality, in our Party.

Ifyou wish to persist in them and in such an “agreement” and in
federation, we can only regret it.

Youask about contributions—to what journal?Kommunisthas
been suspended owing to breach of the temporary agreement. That means to a
new journal? That is, to yours, on thebasisof the “theses”? We
cannot contribute and shall be compelled to fight it, since we find your
attitude to the Party’s Programme (§ 9) to be not only wrong and
harmful, but frivolous. Really, during 8 months of agreement and life
together youthree never oncedrew a pen on this question, which
has a 12–year history within the Party,never once made a
statementin the Editorial Board of the C.O.,never once
attemptedto refer back to Party literature, etc.

Yourarguments for a “free” journal (free from the Party Programme?
from the central bodies of the Party?) are just as frivolous, if not
worse—anti-Party.

Ifyou wish to persist in the theses, we (1) are prepared to publish
them and (2) we areboundto give our opinion:
publish them yourselves (if you do not want us to do it) and furnish them
with a discussion pamphlet in which all three of you could make clear to
the Party your motives.

P.S.You write that the question of money is “unpleasant”. Not
always. When money is treated in a true Party manner, it is a pleasant
thing to the Party. When money is used as aweapon againstthe
Party, it is indeed “unpleasant”, even worse than unpleasant.

[1]Thisletter was written in reply to that of Pyatakov, Bosh and Bukharin
to the editors ofSotsial-Demokratconcerning the disagreements on
the Editorial Board of the journalKommunist.

[2]Thisrefers to the removal to Christiania (Oslo) of Pyatakov, Bosh and
Bukharin, and to their theses “On the Slogan of the Right of Nations to
Self-Determination” sent in to the editors ofSotsial Demokratin
November 1915.

Thewriters of the “theses” were opposed to Clause 9 of the
R.S.D.L.P. Programme dealing with the right of nations to
self-determination.